Announcements

We are pleased to announce that Prof. Dr. Kevin Cianfaglione has been appointed Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens (JZBG, ISSN: 2673-5636).

Prof. Dr. Kevin Cianfaglione is an Associate Professor and a permanent member of the Université Catholique de Lille, in the Faculty of Management, Economy and Sciences. He is a teacher and researcher in the "Ecology and Biodiversity" team, of the "Smart and Sustainable Cities" research unit. His teaching activities focus on botany, plant biology and ecology. His research activities are focused on ecology, plant sciences, landscape, biogeography, ethnobotany and conservation.

With a naturalist and biologist background, he is interested in the characteristics, potentiality and dynamics of habitats and vegetation; life traits and chemical traits; the relationship between man and nature; management of space and natural resources; traditional knowledge and new applications; and alien and native species, including typical cultivars. In his research activity, he has an overall approach to the socio-ecosystem (of natural, agro, and urban types), with environmental, but also cultural and historical values.

Very committed to teaching and research, he has had long-term cooperation with several international teams. He has published more than 90 publications in journals and 3 books. He is an editorial board member of five and editor-in-chief of three international scientific journals.

The following is a Q&A with Prof. Dr. Kevin Cianfaglione, who shared his vision for the journal with us, as well as his views of the research area and Open Access publishing:

1. What appealed to you about the journal that made you want to take the role of its Editor-in-Chief?

To be able to develop the discussion within the scientific community about cultural and scientific heritage linked to ex situ conservation and application to field ecology, sustainability, and the conservation of biodiversity and habitat restoration.

2. What is your vision for the journal?

To extend the journal’s focus beyond the traditional scopes of zoos, aquaria, and botanical gardens by including a holistic approach to the conservation of the fauna and flora of our planet, and to pay more attention to all types of bio-conservatories, that is, all types of structures hosting living and non-living specimen collections (gardens, museums, genetic banks, herbaria, nurseries, faunistic/floristic areas, etc.). We are also interested in research involving possible in situ interaction.

The conservation of biodiversity, natural resources and territorial management is based on a gradient that ranges from primary systems to secondary systems, including museums, genetic banks, herbaria, and botanical and zoological gardens (bio-conservatories, in the broadest sense).

I also aim to give more space to aspects linked to any type of bio-conservatory structure in the widest sense. More attention should also be paid to methodologies, ethics and conflict and contradiction analysis. More attention should also be paid to human resources and cultural human heritage values; we will focus on the environment, biodiversity (Taxa from all living organisms’ kingdoms and their assemblages), conservation (from active to passive management), biology, agronomy, veterinary, paleontology, biogeography, anthropology, humanities and social sciences (including soil uses, traditional knowledge, the perception of territory and biodiversity and land-use conflicts), pharmacology, biochemistry, horticulture, arboriculture, forestry, architecture, engineering and history.

Therefore, we will pay more attention to places (institutions) as well as personalities who have distinguished themselves in the study and evolution of bio-conservatories, natural sciences, life sciences and environmental sciences. Greater focus is also intended to be placed on social, cultural and historical aspects, as well as on problems, methods, technologies and new proposals for the management of sets of specimens (collections), with the consideration of ethical and deontological issues regarding the health, well-being and dignity of living organisms.

3. What developments in your field of expertise excite you at this time?

The development and improvement of new strategies and methods for conservation and restoration, the development and improvement of definition and methods, valorization of traditional knowledge and new uses/applications, and the study and the conception of ecology and conservation (of species and ecosystems) in a dynamic way.

4. What do you think of the development of Open Access in the publishing field?

The development of Open Access in the publishing field is certainly a revolution in the scientific world, like so many that have occurred previously (indexing, impact factor, online publication, etc). Like all revolutions, it brings a series of constraints and changes that can bring advantages and disadvantages, likes and dislikes, upsetting the former balance in some way. Open Access certainly has the advantage of making journal content more accessible to a wider audience.

Concomitant with the expansion of Open Access, many new journals have sprung up, many articles have been published, and there has been much more competition between journals, to the point where many have switched to Open Access, and new journals and new publishers could appear or begin to establish themselves.

This competition and the expansion of journals have also allowed for further democratization of science as this has helped scientists, especially younger ones, to become more involved in the world of journals, article reviews, and editorial boards. This has led to non-mainstream ideas and gives the opportunity to find more place in the world, in better and in worse ways.

This has made publications less sectarian and less elitist, but on the other hand, there have been various negative consequences which should not be underestimated but which must be taken seriously and on which we need to work to improve. Among them, it should be remembered that this can cause limitations, such as enormous costs, to be faced by the authors when publishing.

The expansion of participation in the possibilities for publishing and the growing democratization of decision-making processes has also led to a chronic lack of competent personnel who now seem to be no longer sufficient to be able to follow the revision and review processes as effectively as possible.

Finally, these problems are also indirectly linked to other equally important problems, such as the fact that it is strange that in science authors are not paid to publish nor to conduct manuscript reviews for colleagues, and the fact that we have to pay to write manuscripts is so strange that it can cause bewilderment.

Another problem is linked to the problem of evaluating the quality of journals and people, to those mathematical indices which can cause the anger and delight of scientists. If those indices should be circumvented in some way, tamed, or used in bad faith, they finally show their limits, giving a reason to those scientists who are very critical of this method of evaluating journal and scientist quality.

These critical points often generate outrage. This is very understandable, but it is not with indignation that things can be improved, but with proposals. Today I do not understand what the alternative proposals are that can solve these problems, while also being able to guarantee the advantages that this Open Access revolution could directly and indirectly cause. I sincerely hope that the discussion will soon lead to new proposals and solutions.

In my opinion, a journal should always be committed to rejecting as few of the proposed articles as possible, being able to guide the authors to find the best solutions to reach the publication when needed. An ideal journal would therefore be one that rejects zero articles, publishing excellent articles of wide interest and excellent quality. Additionally, to achieve this we need good journals and good authors.

To be developed, science often needs disciplines that are able to tap into other disciplines. The new systems, the proposals and the new solutions studied should always pay attention to this and promote (or at least not hinder) interdisciplinarity, as has often happened in the past and still happens today—promoting the increase (or at least not favoring the decrease) of the logical analysis and a broad cultural background.

I often have the impression that a journal that rejects a lot of proposed manuscripts can be considered with greater respect and prestige than a journal that tends to reject as little as possible. Additionally, it does not matter if the rejected items can be of interest or good quality. Now we must ask ourselves whether it is better to refuse high-quality articles giving as little space for expression as possible, or whether it is better instead to try to give as much space as possible. In both cases, there may be limits and advantages, and therefore an answer is not simple unless it is mediated by ideologies and opportunism.

In my opinion, rejecting articles too excessively can lead to equally unpleasant drifts, such as selection not based merely on the merits of the articles (as is often communicated), but influenced due to the reasons of other opportunities for the journals, which does not lead to equity or other, better ethical values.

I do not know, and I believe that there is not yet a perfect way to evaluate journals and scientists. Every solution tested and implemented so far has always shown a long series of advantages and disadvantages. Additionally, we will have to treasure these experiences to avoid going backward or making things worse.

We must try to encourage the discussion on these issues without them turning into wars of defending different prerogatives, always bearing in mind that we can increasingly improve the democratization and equity of these tools, together with the quality of products and services, especially of our texts published.

We warmly welcome our new Editor-in-Chief and wish the journal every success in the future.

On 9 February 2023, Clarivate, a global leader in providing trusted insights and analytics, added the Preprint Citation Index to the Web of Science platform, streamlining the research process by allowing researchers to locate and link to preprints alongside other trusted content in the database.

The Preprint Citation Index will act as a bridge to connect cutting-edge preprints with peer-reviewed journal articles published within the Web of Science Core Collection. Alerts can be easily set to monitor new research across several repositories and authors will also be able to include preprints on their Web of Science Research Profile to more accurately display their various research outputs.

As of its launch, the Preprint Citation Index will provide nearly two million preprints from various repositories, including MDPI’s own Preprints.org.

MDPI's Preprints Platform – Preprints.org

To advance Open Science and the fast dissemination of research, MDPI offers researchers a free multidisciplinary preprint platform. Preprints.org accepts submissions from all research areas and offers authors high visibility, permanent archiving, article-level Metrics and immediately citable content by assigning a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to all preprints.

During submission to any MDPI journal, authors have the option to share their research as a preprint. After an initial screening, the manuscript is available online in 48 hours or less. Once online, preprints can be downloaded, shared, commented on, and cited, providing authors maximum visibility.

We invite you to join the ranks of the over 100k researchers using Preprints.org and share your research.

For more information, please visit Preprints.org.

We are pleased to announce the launch of a new initiative—the MDPI Special Issue Mentor Program.

This program will enable early career researchers (who must hold a Ph.D. in a related field) to experience editing a Special Issue in MDPI journals, under the mentorship of our experienced Editorial Board Members or other experienced scientists. The mentor program will provide an excellent opportunity for early career scientists to gain editorial experience, and to cultivate their ability to edit scientific research.

The mentee’s responsibilities include:

• Proposing a Special Issue title and assisting the mentor in preparing a summary (around 200–400 words) and 3–10 keywords describing the background, importance, and goal of the Issue;
• Writing a brief promotion plan for the Special Issue;
• Preparing a list of scholars who may be interested in the Issue and personally e-mailing invitations on behalf of Guest Editors;
• Writing an editorial for the online Special Issue together with the mentor.

The mentor’s responsibilities include:

• Conducting a final check before the Special Issue is published online;
• Performing editorial control of the Special Issue and quality control of the publications, both of which must be carried out in a timely manner;
• Providing suggestions to younger scholars if they have any doubts or concerns regarding submissions;
• Organizing video calls with young scholars and the Editorial Office regularly to discuss problems and improvement suggestions for the Special Issue;
• Making and submitting decisions regarding submissions with the assistance of mentees.

Certificates and awards:
After the Special Issue closes, the Editorial Office will provide official certificates for all the mentors and early career researchers.

If you are interested in this opportunity, please send your Special Issue proposal to the Editorial Office of a journal you choose, and we will discuss the process (i.e., mentor collaboration, Special Issue topic feasibility analysis, etc.) in further detail. The full list of MDPI journals is as follows: https://www.mdpi.com/about/journals.

In addition to the new Special Issue Mentor Program, we will continue to welcome all Special Issue proposals focusing on hot research topics.

MDPI has just become the first open access (OA) publisher to reach the milestone of one million articles published. That is one million articles freely available to all, to circulate and build upon! We are proud to share this special moment with the global scientific community.

This landmark has been reached thanks to the immeasurable support of more than 600,000 expert reviewers, 66,000 editorial board members and 6700 hard-working colleagues across MDPI’s global offices.

Within more than 25 years of publishing, our journals received 2.1 million manuscripts and generated 4.6 million peer review reports to get to one million papers published.

Reaching the milestone of one million articles published reinforces our mission to remove any existing barriers and to make scientific research accessible to all. Since its inception, MDPI’s goal has been to create reliable processes to make science open. This is a path towards facilitating the dissemination of novel insights in scientific communities.

Regular feedback from authors and reviewers shows that our service is greatly appreciated and needed. At the same time, the feedback helps us identify areas for further improvement.

As it stands, a significant share of published research findings remain closed access. More than half of the content published with the most well-known legacy publishers stays behind a paywall, and that is not including articles published in hybrid OA journals, or made available months or years after publication.

A new policy announced by the US administration in August 2022 requires that, as of January 2026, all US federally funded research be made freely and immediately available after publication. While the new policy does not mandate articles be published under an open access license, it is aligned with the open access movement in removing all barriers to research. Similarly, some of the most advanced research institutions in the world intend to have all funded research articles published in open access by 2025.

MDPI is proud to be the leading agent of the transition to open access.

"Thanks a Million" to all the contributors!

We are pleased to announce that the website of the MDPI Sustainability Foundation has been revamped! For the past couple of months, our UX UI team and front-end developers have been working hard to launch the website in time for the opening of the Sustainability Awards nominations.

The website is not the only thing that has had a remodeling. Indeed, the format of the Emerging Sustainability Leader Award (ESLA) has been updated. ESLA is now a competition open to individual researchers or start-ups founded by researchers under the age of 35. Nominee applications will go through 2 rounds of selection until the final 3 are decided. The finalists will then be invited to give pitch presentations during the Award Ceremony to win either first place (10,000 USD) or runner-up (2 x 5000 USD).

The World Sustainability Award, on the other hand, remains the same: a total prize money of 100,000 USD is up for grabs by senior individual researchers or groups of researchers from the international research community.

Nominations for both the World Sustainability Award and the Emerging Sustainability Leader award are now open! Check out our new website for more information on how to nominate.

Peer Review Week began 19 September 2022 under the theme of “Research Integrity: Creating and Supporting Trust in Research”. Through various blog articles, podcast, and webinar, we discussed this crucial subject throughout the week, celebrating the essential role peer review plays in maintaining research quality.

To begin, we held a Webinar on the topic. Professor Peter W. Choate and Dr. Emmanuel Obeng-Gyasi joined Dr. Ioana Craciun, one of MDPI’s scientific officers, for an in-depth discussion.

We invite you to view the event recording:

During the week, the MDPI Blog in a series articles highlighted how good Peer Review safeguards research integrity. The following topics were covered:

• Peer Review Week 2022
• Research Integrity
• What We’ve Learned About Peer Review Reports
• 4 Steps to the Perfect Peer Review Report
• How to Write the Perfect Peer Review Report: An Interview
• Inviting Great Peer Reviewers

In a new edition of Insight Faster, an MDPI podcast, we were delighted to talk to the co-chairs of the Peer Review Week committee, Jayashree Rajagopalan (Senior Manager of Global Community Engagement for CACTUS) and Danielle Padula (Head of Marketing and Community Development at Scholastica) to get their take on this year’s event and its related topics.

You can find the Podcast here.

We hope you enjoy the contents!

MDPI will be attending the 2022 Joint Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, from 13 to 16 November 2022.

The 2022 Joint Annual Meeting will be hosted by the Entomological Society of America (ESA), Entomological Society of Canada (ESC), and the Entomological Society of British Columbia (ESBC). The theme for the Joint Meeting is “Entomology as Inspiration: Insects through Art, Science, and Culture”.

The following MDPI journals will be represented:

• Agriculture (leading journal);
• Insects (leading journal);
• Crops;
• Agronomy;
• Animals;
• Biology;
• JZBG.

If you are attending this conference, please feel free to start a conversation with us at our booth: #616. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person and answering any questions that you may have. For more information about the conference, please visit https://www.entsoc.org/events/annual-meeting, or contact the Insects Editorial Office at insects@mdpi.com.

MDPI will be attending the 6th European Congress of Conservation Biology, held in Prague, Czech Republic, from 22 to 26 August 2022.

The following MDPI journals will be represented:

• Insects (leading journal);
• Forests;
• Horticulturae;
• JZBG.

If you plan on attending this conference, feel free to visit our booth. Our delegates look forward to meeting you in person and answering any questions that you may have.

For more information about the conference, please see the following link: https://www.eccb2022.eu/.

We are currently recruiting a founding Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens (JZBG, ISSN: 2673-5636), which is a new, open access journal published online by MDPI. JZBG draws together expertise from biology, conservation, social sciences, and the humanities to explore pure and applied research questions concerning the management, conservation, and sustainability of wildlife.

The main responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief include:

• Defining the aims and scope of the journal;
• Advising on the strategic development of the journal;
• Deciding whether submitted manuscripts can be sent for review, assigned to other editors, or rejected;
• Ensuring the quality of the published content;
• Nominating/inviting Associate or Guest Editors;
• Nominating/inviting contributors;
• Nominating and leading the Editorial Board;
• Promoting the journal at scientific conferences or through other venues.
• To apply or request further information, please contact the Editorial Office (jzbg@mdpi.com).

Application deadline: 31 July 2022.

The 2021 citation metrics have been officially released in Scopus!

We are pleased to announce that 182 MDPI journals are included, of which:

● 21 journals received their first CiteScore.
● 85% of journals increased their CiteScore from 2020.
● 155 journals (85%) ranked above average, in at least one category.

The following 65 MDPI journals (36%) ranked among the top 25% of journals, in at least one category:

Source: 2021 CiteScores™ (Elsevier)